Childers

Childers v. Shasta Livestock Auction Yard, Inc.

Good Law
190 Cal. App. 3d 792·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1542·235 Cal. Rptr. 641·52 Cal. Comp. Cases 190
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 25, 1987C000474California9,223 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

In this case, we consider whether an employee can sue his employer in tort on a theory of respondeat superior for injuries caused by another employee’s consumption of alcoholic beverages in the scope of her employment. We conclude that where an employee consumes alcohol in the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable for injuries proximately caused to members of the public by the consumption of alcohol. Neither Civil Code section 1714 nor Business and Professions Code section 25602 immunizes the employer from respondeat superior liability. However, we also conclude the present tort action is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers’ compensation act. (Lab. Code, §§ 3600-3602; all further nondescript statutory references are to the Lab. Code.)

Procedural History and Facts

Plaintiff Mike Childers appeals from a summary judgment granted his employer defendant Shasta Livestock Auction Yard (Shasta) in plaintiff’s action for personal injuries. Plaintiff seeks damages from Shasta on the theory of respondeat superior, asserting Shasta is vicariously liable for the torts of another employee, Toni JoAnn Abbott. The trial court entered summary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.